Opinion 25-180

December 18, 2025

Digest:  (1) A treatment court judge may not personally accept an unsolicited gift of artwork from a defendant participant, but may accept it on behalf of the Unified Court System.  The judge may give the drawing to the treatment coordinator to display in his/her office, subject to administrative approval.
(2) The judge may explain to court participants, either orally or in writing, the ethical limitations on a judge’s acceptance of gifts.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(D)(5); 100.4(D)(5)(h); Opinions 17-152; 09-167.

Opinion:

          A judge who presides in a Mental Health Court recently received an unsolicited sketch created by a defendant participant.  The artwork depicts a courtroom scene and is inexpensively framed.  This particular defendant “has been actively encouraged to engage in an art class as part [of] their participation” in the treatment court.  The judge worries that refusing the gift might be perceived as “undermining [the judge’s] own directives and devaluing the art class activity” and could potentially undermine the trust and rapport necessary to the treatment court if taken as a personal rejection.  The judge asks several questions about what to do with this artwork and what to say to treatment court participants about giving gifts to judges.  If it is ethically permissible to accept the artwork, the judge notes “[t]here is currently no place in a public area of the courthouse to display such items” and thus asks specifically if he/she may give the drawing to the court’s treatment coordinator for display in his/her own office, which is “much more public” than the judge’s chambers.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must not accept “a gift, bequest, favor or loan” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5]).  If none of the specific enumerated exceptions apply, the judge may accept “only if: the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][h]). 

          Here, of course, the donor is an individual whose interests are currently before the judge, and no other exceptions apply.  We thus conclude the judge must not accept the artwork as a personal gift (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5]). 

          This does not end the analysis, however, as we have previously advised that a judge may accept an artwork from a charitable foundation on behalf of the Unified Court System and display it in the courtroom after obtaining his/her administrative judge’s approval to do so (see Opinion 09-167).  In reaching this conclusion, we emphasized that the accepted artwork “will be the property of the Unified Court System” (id.).  Somewhat analogously, we have said a Family Court judge may accept artwork from children with pending permanency hearings as gifts to the Unified Court System for display in public spaces in the courthouse, again subject to administrative approval (see Opinion 17-152 [noting specific precedent involving “drawings from children”]).

          On the facts presented, we conclude the inquiring judge need not return the court participant’s sketch but may accept it on behalf of the Unified Court System for public display in the courthouse, subject to appropriate administrative approvals.

          Given the judge’s representation that there is no public area of the courthouse where the artwork may be displayed, we conclude the judge may give the drawing to the treatment coordinator to display in his/her office, subject to administrative approval, as the judge indicates this location is “much more public” than the judge’s chambers.

          Finally, we conclude that the judge may explain his/her ethical limitations regarding gifts to court participants, either orally or in writing.  We note that the judge is free to share this opinion and/or relevant provisions of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct with court participants, if desired.